Vol. 377 No. 5
asked the Minister for Labour his views on whether the social welfare increases announced in the budget necessitate or make desirable an increase in the allowances paid to FÁS and CERT trainees; and if he has satisfied himself that the arrangements announced by him in relation to additional payment to CERT trainees for Christmas in fact operated so as to ensure that there was no disincentive to persons taking up training opportunities.
10.
asked the Minister for Labour if the allowance paid to persons on social employment schemes will be increased in line with the budget increase in social welfare; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
29.
asked the Minister for Labour his views on whether the social welfare increases announced in the budget necessitate or make desirable an increase in the allowances paid to participants in the Teamwork and social employment schemes.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 10 and 29 together.
Standard training allowances payable to unemployed trainees in FÁS and CERT of 18 years and over will continue to be set at a rate equivalent to the maximum urban long-term unemployment assistance rate. Persons entitled to social welfare payments higher than that rate will receive allowances set at the equivalent to their social welfare entitlement. Consequently, when social welfare payments are increased in late July 1988, these training allowances will increase by the same amount.
It is not proposed to change the rates of the special training allowances set for 15 to 17-year olds who are not entitled to unemployment assistance.
Grants to sponsors in respect of wages paid to participants on teamwork and the social employment schemes are not linked to social welfare rates. I have no proposals to increase these grants at present.
As regards CERT unemployed trainees, the additional payment for Christmas was made on the same basis as applied to AnCO-FÁS trainees. In other words, CERT unemployed trainees who obtained a certificate from the Department of Social Welfare that they were on long term unemployment assistance at the commencement of training received the bonus from CERT.
Let me deal first with the extra allowances for Christmas. Will the Minister accept that his promise to the Dáil that the announcement he had made would mean that there would be no disincentive to trainees proved hollow? All told, some 4,000 trainees did not benefit from the extra allowances promised. Trainees who were long term unemployed who would have qualified for the bonus had they remained unemployed were not paid the bonus if they were recruited before 17 August. Therefore, we had the extraordinary anomaly of people working side-by-side, some getting the bonus and some not getting the bonus. Also, trainees less than 15 months unemployed at the start of training and, therefore, only short term did not get it while if they had remained unemployed they would have become long term and qualified for the extra 60 per cent. Will the Minister accept that a number of very serious gaps emerged in what he had promised for Christmas?
No, I will not. I made very clear in August when we cut the training rates that it was for new entrants to the courses and we gave a commitment to those on the courses that they would continue to receive the same rates. That is precisely what we did. When we announced it in the initial statement in early December there was some confusion in this House. Clearly, I gave the instructions following talks with the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Finance and the Department of Labour on the position. I also issued a statement which was properly published in the newspapers. I do not accept that there was confusion. It may be that people wished to interpret that everybody was going to get the increased rates and an increased bonus, but it was clear from my statements from as early as August what the position was going to be.
I think the trainees involved would hold their own judgment of that. Regarding the Teamwork and social employment schemes, is it not the case that because of the increases announced in the budget these programmes will be of interest now only to people without dependants? The increases provided for in the budget will bring the rates paid to someone with one adult dependant substantially above the Teamwork and social employment allowance, so effectively those schemes will be confined to young, single people. Does the Minister regard that as satisfactory?
The attraction of the social employment scheme was always for single people and people with no dependants. That is still the position.
And married people in the past.
Because of the substantial, unexpected — I will not say generous because nothing is generous for long term unemployed — increase, there could be a problem and we will have to monitor that as the year goes forward. If there is not a take-up on social employment and Teamwork schemes, I will have to examine the matter at that stage, but it is contrary at the moment. Demands for the scheme are massive.
Will the Minister not accept that he is starting off the year with an imbalance? He knows that the target group for the social employment and Teamwork schemes will be single people without dependants, yet the vast majority of people on long term unemployment must be those with dependants. At whom is he aiming the social employment scheme? Does he think it suitable for long term unemployed people in reality?
For the past three years and up to now the social employment scheme has attracted single people and people without dependants. I have not got the figure in my brief, but the target number is four or five times higher than the number of places, which is about 9,400 man years. That can still be targeted to a substantial number of people. Another matter that I cannot change is that my estimates and the man years available under the schemes were based last September-October before any changes or budget were discussed so I still have to live within those figures.
When the Minister says in response to Question No. 10 that the increases for the social employment scheme will be in line with the budget increase for social welfare in July, is he referring to the 3 per cent increase or will an element of £4 be included in the increase for the social employment scheme in order to bring them up also?
There will be no increase in the social employment scheme.
There will be no increase in the social employment scheme.
I thought the Minister said in his reply that it would be increased in July.
No. I said that grants to sponsors in respect of wages paid to participants on Teamwork and the social employment scheme are not linked to social welfare rates, so I have no proposals to increase these grants at present.
Will the Minister accept that when the social employment scheme was first introduced there was an incentive to take part in that scheme to anyone who was first, single: second, married without other dependants and, thirdly, married with one child: that all of those categories stood to gain financially from participation but it has now been whittled down to where only single people find it attractive?
No. There were always very few people. That is why it is £85 for a married person and unfortunately there is still a substantial number of married people whom it might attract. It was never as attractive, and I think that still holds. On the more important question, if it appears that there is a massive falloff in the schemes, then I can review it because I will be dealing with the same financial figures. However, there is no indication of that.
Would the Minister not consider that it would have been more appropriate in the budget to devote more funds to the social employment scheme and make it more attractive to long term unemployed people, instead of increasing unemployment assistance and thereby copperfastening the position of those people outside the labour market? Surely, it would have been more appropriate to do something that would enable them to take part and if you have a given amount of funds to put them into something that allows them to participate rather than keeping them outside.
Increases in social welfare assist all the dependants on social welfare. No matter how good the schemes are they could not have the same——
This is long term unemployment assistance.
It affects all of the people on long term unemployment, who number over 100,000. I said in reply to a previous question that the ESF contribution towards the social employment scheme was far less than we received on the training schemes. By trying to achieve an increase on the ESF contribution we will finally help the social employment scheme, but that will be resolved in 1988.
I misunderstood the Minister's earlier reply. If the social employment scheme is not to be increased relative to the social welfare increases, will he consider increasing it relative to the increases provided for in the Programme for National Recovery which was agreed with the trade union movement? It would seem only fair that an increase be provided. I understand that the only thing done in this regard in recent years has been a reduction.
There was an increase in the married person's rate and a decrease in the other rate which also allowed more people to be taken on the scheme. Within the fairly tight guidelines of the financial targets I have to achieve in 1988 I have not the resources to increase it by 3.5 per cent, but it is a matter that can be reviewed based on the take-up during the year.
